*Tenant*: "a: one who holds or possesses real estate or sometimes personal property (as a security) by any kind of rightb: one who has the occupation or temporary possession of lands or tenements of another; specifically, one who rents or leases (as a house) from a landlord"

Did you perhaps mean *tenet*? "a principle or belief" :p

But regarding the game, the rpg+rts mash-up idea I like, but that art style is awful. I like my Arthurian legends either in the Romance style or gritty and realistic. This comic-book/Warhammer style doesn't cut it for me.

Love the game and enjoyed the campaign but can't argue with criticisms like the small font xP

Just to add to this review, it's worth noting that king arthur 2 has been extremely divisive amongst its fan base in that the game isn't as total war as the first in regards to objectives and game progresion, basically in ka2 the campaign is much more driven and you're directed from goal to goal with a few bonus objectives here and there (also the tier system means you can only conquer pronvinces in a certain order, so you won't be able to take over a province whose armies out tier you due to their troops being much more powerful), but not like the more freeform style of ka1. This has annoyed quite a few who wanted to see a bigger and improved version of ka1 and the tier system despit helping pacing also railroads the player.

On the upside this does have the effect of making the campaign experience more consistent then ka1, which would have a MASSIVE difficulty spike towards the end due to constantly respawning strong armies which a lot of players simply couldn't handle.

Can add quite a bit more to ka2 but no point writing a tl dr if no one is interested in reading it, so will just conclude by mentionning my favorite addition to the series: air units.

The air units in this game are simply awesome, they swoop down on the hapless soldiers below, duel other air units in the skies in a way that looks awesome and dynamic (they dont just stand there in the air trading bows) and also, dragons. Dragons in this game look awesome as they strafe enemy regiments and burn dozen of soldiers with each pass.

EvilPicnic:that art style is awful. I like my Arthurian legends either in the Romance style or gritty and realistic. This comic-book/Warhammer style doesn't cut it for me.

Aw I like the art style :( Warhammerish is perfect way to describe it though.

The game itself looks interesting indeed, I can live with crappy and inconcistent voice acting, but the draw backs of the gameplay itself looks like the kind of things I might want to pull out my hair in anger and scream at my screen. It's a shame, really, the game looked interesting.

I hated battles in the first King Arthur. It ended up being "capture the irrelevant points of interests" rather than actual battles. I wanted an actual battle a la Total War instead of a cheap multiplayer capture the point gameplay.

Is this still the case? Because I couldn't even finish King Arthur 1 with that god awful battle set up.

In short, it's ass.Don't know where they got the devs for this but they have no fucking clue, every part of the game feels like it's glued together with gum and ready to fall off at any time.And when there were issues with performance the devs come out with a public statement that anything above 20FPS is fine... where the fuck do you find these retards, who pays these drunken monkeys to make games.

Ultratwinkie:I hated battles in the first King Arthur. It ended up being "capture the irrelevant points of interests" rather than actual battles. I wanted an actual battle a la Total War instead of a cheap multiplayer capture the point gameplay.

Is this still the case? Because I couldn't even finish King Arthur 1 with that god awful battle set up.

You're in luck then. VPs give access to bonus spells you can use in the battle but there is no win condition related to them.

So far most people seem annoyed at this removal then they are pleased with it though, so if theres a ka3 i'd expect it to make a return then.

Negative:Tier System.No Freedom.Heroes are much more set into their roles.Limited recruitment and only 3 armies allowed (You also don't have these from the start, you get them as you go along)No income except from fighting.The resource system is also just gold now, and there is no upkeep cost.Imbalanced Meteor spell...(When you can wipe out an entire army with 1 hero in the first minute of a battle it is bad... Especially since you can just continue summoning them until they are all dead.)Inconsistent and in many cases, Bad Narrator.Morality system now only affects units and 4 spells(One for each morality)

Basically. This is less Total War now and more Warhammer: Mark of Chaos. There is almost no freedom nor is there any strategy when not in battle. You like linear. Then this is for you.

Vamast:i dont get why its just england, why not middle east seeing how theres where christianity started? its why its all convoluted.

Sounds like an odd criticism of a King Arthur game. Arthurian legend is about as deeply rooted in English lore as you can get. Inasmuch as it's about Christianity, it's about the birth of English Christianity. You want quests to the Holy Land, you need to go medieval and look at the crusades or something.

Ultratwinkie:I hated battles in the first King Arthur. It ended up being "capture the irrelevant points of interests" rather than actual battles. I wanted an actual battle a la Total War instead of a cheap multiplayer capture the point gameplay.

Is this still the case? Because I couldn't even finish King Arthur 1 with that god awful battle set up.

They're less important, though you certainly still want to control them simply to keep them out of enemy hands. The biggest problem I ran into with them is when the game pulls a "gotcha" on you. "Oh, you thought that weakly rated army with 1/2 dead troops would be a push over. Surprise they spawn right next to two Lightning Bolt locations!"

It's fairly rare and certainly makes you need to adapt your tactics, but it's still really annoying. More so in that you have no way of surveying the battlefield beforehand to bring the right troops for that.

Looks like the developers of King Arthur 1 didn't do much to change their formula...

Anyone actually play king arthur 1? Biggest waste of $10 ever (got the collection over steam black friday sale last year) I thought it would be an RPG with some total war elements. What I got was civilization without the armies... Don't get me started on the morale system...

Vamast:if this is english christianiy, why do they pray to bethlahem and jerewlasem in church?

Srsly? You need an answer to that? Er - because they're Christians and so they believe Jesus was born in Bethlehem and died in Jerusalem (sp). You know - like people do today. Like that bloke in the big dress in Italy.

Vamast:if this is english christianiy, why do they pray to bethlahem and jerewlasem in church?

I'm trying to figure out what on Earth you mean by this. Bethlehem and Jerusalem are places and nobody prays "to" them. Some may go on pilgramage to pray "at" them but this is far from being a requirement of the faith. It's not like Christianity has it's own version of the Hajj.

The myth of King Arthur (yes folks, it's not real) is about warring kingdoms during the Anglo-Saxon era of Great Britain. During this period there was a large divide religiously throughout Britain. The Romans had brought over Christianity previously but there were still a lot of Pagan practitioners. It was only until Æthelberht of Kent converted to Christianity that it really started to become popular. So throughout the game you'll be torn between choosing one or the other as it was a major political issue at the time.

The game isn't about Christianity nor Paganism, it just happens to be set within a tumultuous period of Britian in terms of religion, and practically everything else.